Historical Case for the Resurrection of Jesus

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well not granted, and you haven’t supported that assertion

Again.... what can I say............................

Maybe an example will make you see the sillyness here:

A magician shows an empty hat.
He puts it on the table and says "abracadabra".
Lo and behold, he pulls a rabbit out of the hat.

Hypothesis 1: it's a trick. Don't know how he did it. But somewhere between showing the empty hat and pulling the rabbit out of it, he did something that made the rabbit end up in the hat. Or perhaps the rabbit was always in there and it just looked empty by playing around with clever angles while showing the hat.

Hypothesis 2: "abracadabra" was a magic spell and out of nothing the rabbit was conjured up inside the hat.


Hypothesis 2 requires suspension of natural law.

Which, without having any additional evidence, do you think is more likely right out the gates?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again.... what can I say............................

Maybe an example will make you see the sillyness here:

A magician shows an empty hat.
He puts it on the table and says "abracadabra".
Lo and behold, he pulls a rabbit out of the hat.

Hypothesis 1: it's a trick. Don't know how he did it. But somewhere between showing the empty hat and pulling the rabbit out of it, he did something that made the rabbit end up in the hat. Or perhaps the rabbit was always in there and it just looked empty by playing around with clever angles while showing the hat.

Hypothesis 2: "abracadabra" was a magic spell and out of nothing the rabbit was conjured up inside the hat.


Hypothesis 2 requires suspension of natural law.

Which, without having any additional evidence, do you think is more likely right out the gates?

I don't know. Was @Dan From Smithville involved?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So your observation of me buying dog food is not evidence that I have a dog (that is your cliam),,,,,,,,,,,,, well all I can say is that your definition of evidence is different form what everybody’s definition.

If your goal is to poison your neighbor's dog using the dogfood, then how is you buying the dogfood evidence of you owning a dog?

Evolution is false by that standard, microbes like bacteria are not organized in a NH, scientists believe that this is die to horizontal gene transfer and various other mechanism

//facepalm

Horizontal gene transfer is a known mechanism and it accounts for those instances where there is no strict nested hierarchy.
It is known what it can and cannot accomplish.
By NH we mean the large scale things like only mammals having hair, only mammals have mammary glands, only birds and their dino ancestors have feathers, .. and the genetics that underpins those things.

All this is part of the predictions. I was not going to go in such detail for simplicity's sake. But I forgot who I was talking to. You'll grasp at anything in an attempt to defend your nonsense.

You see, it is very dangerous to use the kind of strong words that you are using…….now you have to face a dilemma.

1 reject evolution

2 reject your defection/standard

The only thing "dangerous" here, is talking to you in general terms so that you have openings to spew your childish nonsense.
Your intellectually dishonest approach never ceases to amaze me.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You presume a global flood when the Bible does not tell us that.

It tells us exactly that. You're the one pretending it says what it doesn't say and imagining it's a "local flood." It seems to me you make that argument because you are aware that there is no scientific evidence of a global flood.

But that feature is what you said at the top (the one I did not answer) is not how the critical thinker thinks.
You are saying that it is OK to presume (by faith) that the God and supernatural in the Bible are not true and then to make the Bible and when it was written and by whom, fit that presumption.

There is no faith required in not believing unverified claims. You're still getting this backwards.

If the opening of the hand caused the gap then the opening of the hand is the cause. It's really a simple concept. What caused something is the cause.

 

[SkepticThinker]

In a religious forum we are speaking faith and then skeptics come here and say that faith is rubbish and want to speak science and don't realise that their world view has as much faith as a religious persons world view.

What faith do "skeptics" have and in what?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I was only speaking for myself when I said "Faith is believing something you know is true."

So do all the other people who believe things that are mutually exclusive to your beliefs.
The point. It's so far over your head you don't even see it.

So I meant "Faith is believing something I know is true."

Knowledge is demonstrable.
"knowing" and "believing" are not the same thing.
All thumbs are fingers but not all fingers are thumbs.

You are correct in saying that they can't all be right. So at least some of them are wrong.

All of them can be wrong as well.
IOW, faith is not a pathway to truth.

Most likely, one is right and others are partly right and some are completely wrong.

No. Most likely, ALL are wrong. At best, one is correct. And if that is the case, it was just a lucky guess. Because faith is not a pathway to truth.

Anything that cannot be proven must be believed on faith and God is in that category.

Not just proven. Even only supported.
And when things can't be proven or supported, then the rational thing to do is to reject them or at least withhold belief until you actually have rational reasons to believe.

Your statement reveals that faith beliefs have no basis and that they are just believed because the believers want to believe

When I believe something... it's not because I want to. It's because I MUST. Because I am compelled to through evidence and reason.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It tells us exactly that. You're the one pretending it says what it doesn't say and imagining it's a "local flood." It seems to me you make that argument because you are aware that there is no scientific evidence of a global flood.

There is no faith required in not believing unverified claims. You're still getting this backwards.

Even worse, he will not clearly define his flood model because he seems to know that any reasonable flood model, one where there could have been a flood and God did not have to lie somehow, will make its effect so small that there would have been no point to the ark.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

and don't realise that their world view has as much faith as a religious persons world view.

You keep claiming this.....................................

What are you referring to specifically?
What do I have "faith" in in your opinion?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes people believe all sorts of things, even that scientology is true and even that science is a pathway to find the truth.

Science has a tremendous track record of finding valid answers to questions about the universe.
Do you disagree?

How's that internet device working out for with which we are able to have this silly conversation at light speed?

 

[leroy]

I haven't changed the definition of anything. These are not eyewitness accounts we are talking about. They are stories that were passed down orally for some time, and then written down by anonymous writers decades later.

I have no idea why you think this is unrelated to the claims in your OP. How did you come to those conclusions then? Based on what? You came to those conclusions based on these stories from the Bible, correct?. But you don't think it's important to know whether those stories are verifiable accounts or just based on "I heard it from a guy who heard it from a guy that 500 people saw something?"

This is what you had said to me:
"This is a testable and falsifiable claim; all you have to do is provide an example of an event reported by Paul and Mark that is not accepted by most historians. You won’t find any, (except for those events that have theological implications)"

This is very simple.

1 If your claim is that Paul is quotung from “unsuported rumors” then you have a burden proof and you are expected to show that the claim is true

2 if your claim is that Paul is quoting from “third persons” then sure I agree

My response was to list:

A person was resurrected from the dead.
"The 500" witnessed the resurrection of a dead person.
Heaven being torn open and a spirit descending from it and a voice coming out of it
Jesus driving out demons from people

Now you say:

Cool, so we can completely dismiss the resurrection claims.

You are not followign the conversation, the claim was that atleast for the “natural” events, my criteria is good enough.

My criteria being “any event reported in 2 sources (say Paul and Mark) should be accepted as a probable historical fact)………… this is true for “natural event”…….. I am just objecting on why applying different “rules” for non-natural events?

 

[leroy]

It would stop being tedious and boring if you would move on from tedious and boring "arguments".


Idd



The OP offers a hypothesis. That is what we are discussing. I don't require a "counter" hypothesis to dismantle the one in the OP.



Again, I don't require such a hypothesis.
Nevertheless, as stated multiple times, any hypothesis that doesn't involve "natural law was suspended" (like people made a mistake, people lied, people were delusional, people exaggerate / embellished,.....) would be a better explanation then an idea that DOES require natural law to be suspended.

An interesting question would be, why are you avoiding that challenge?.......... why are you avoiding the challenge of proposing a naturalistic hypothesis (accept your part of the burden proof) and support that hypothesis?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What faith do "skeptics" have and in what?

They tend to have a misplace faith that other people will understand logic. Sadly this is not true.

 

[Subduction Zone]

An interesting question would be, why are you avoiding that challenge?.......... why are you avoiding the challenge of proposing a naturalistic hypothesis (accept your part of the burden proof) and support that hypothesis?

The "challenge" was artificial and that has been explained to you by four posters at least.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is very simple.

1 If your claim is that Paul is quotung from “unsuported rumors” then you have a burden proof and you are expected to show that the claim is true

No, he merely has to point out the obvious. That a possible rational explanation beats one that relies on magic.

2 if your claim is that Paul is quoting from “third persons” then sure I agree

He is clearly not even quoting. Do you not know what a quote is? At best he is merely repeating a rumor. We can be pretty sure that Paul met Peter. He might have met James, but that is not clear. He does not appear to have met any of the other disciples.

You are not followign the conversation, the claim was that atleast for the “natural” events, my criteria is good enough.

What? Okay, so now you are saying that the resurrection did not happen? It seems that you cannot follow your own claims. How do you expect others to?

My criteria being “any event reported in 2 sources (say Paul and Mark) should be accepted as a probable historical fact)………… this is true for “natural event”…….. I am just objecting on why applying different “rules” for non-natural events?

And your criteria fail. That has been explained to you multiple times. By the way, the Bible is only one source. You keep forgetting why it is only one source.

 

[leroy]

Again.... what can I say............................

Maybe an example will make you see the sillyness here:

A magician shows an empty hat.
He puts it on the table and says "abracadabra".
Lo and behold, he pulls a rabbit out of the hat.

Hypothesis 1: it's a trick. Don't know how he did it. But somewhere between showing the empty hat and pulling the rabbit out of it, he did something that made the rabbit end up in the hat. Or perhaps the rabbit was always in there and it just looked empty by playing around with clever angles while showing the hat.

Hypothesis 2: "abracadabra" was a magic spell and out of nothing the rabbit was conjured up inside the hat.


Hypothesis 2 requires suspension of natural law.

Which, without having any additional evidence, do you think is more likely right out the gates?

In this particular case hypotheiss 1 “wins”

But you made a more ambisious claim……….. “that naturalistic expalnations *always* win.

Consider this counter example.

1 You go to your house, and the drawers start to open and close

2 then you see a nebulous image of a friend of your that passed away few days ago

3 he talks to you and he explains to you that he is a ghost.

4 you have a conversation with him about a football game that you had with him in 3rth grade

5 other witnesses where with you and saw the same thing. and it was rcorded in a camera.

What hypothesis would be better.

1 i´ts a ghost (something that is typically labeled as supernarual)

2 it´s a hallucination (natrual).....................(reed point 5 before claiming that this is the best hypotheiss)



Assuming that you picked hypothesis 1, this proves that it is at least logically possible for natural hypothesis to lose vs something that would be labeled as supernatural.



This shows that naturalistic hypothesis don’t win by default…………

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

An interesting question would be, why are you avoiding that challenge?

I'm not avoiding it. In fact I rose up to it multiple times while also explaining what it is not even necessary.
Your fallacious burden-of-proof-shift "challenge" is to provide a hypothesis that is more likely then the one that requires natural laws to be suspended.

I provided several.

Continue sticking your head in the sand.

.......... why are you avoiding the challenge of proposing a naturalistic hypothesis (accept your part of the burden proof) and support that hypothesis?

Paul had a psychosis, like 3 in 100 people have at least once in their life.
And that's assuming the entire story isn't just made up, which is ALSO more plausible then "natural law was suspended".

There. Done. A hypothesis more likely then "natural law was suspended".

Now you may resume to ignore all of this.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In this particular case hypotheiss 1 “wins”

But you made a more ambisious claim……….. “that naturalistic expalnations *always* win.

Consider this counter example.

1 You go to your house, and the drawers start to open and close

2 then you see a nebulous image of a friend of your that passed away few days ago

3 he talks to you and he explains to you that he is a ghost.

4 you have a conversation with him about a football game that you had with him in 3rth grade

5 other witnesses where with you and saw the same thing. and it was rcorded in a camera.

What hypothesis would be better.

1 i´ts a ghost (something that is typically labeled as supernarual)

2 it´s a hallucination (natrual).....................(reed point 5 before claiming that this is the best hypotheiss)



Assuming that you picked hypothesis 1, this proves that it is at least logically possible for natural hypothesis to lose vs something that would be labeled as supernatural.



This shows that naturalistic hypothesis don’t win by default…………

You might have noticed some teensy tiny differences.

You have eyewitnesses. There are none in the Bible. There is only hearsay.

You have a physical recording. There are none in the Bible. Not one smidgen.

You don't have contradicting stories.. Almost every story in the Bible regarding Jesus have contradictions. Even the two accounts of Paul's hallucinations are contradictory. If you had all of that then people would give the Bible a lot more credit. But you do not have anything even remotely similar to that. Your example is just you shooting holes in your feet again.

 

[SkepticThinker]

This is very simple.

1 If your claim is that Paul is quotung from “unsuported rumors” then you have a burden proof and you are expected to show that the claim is true

2 if your claim is that Paul is quoting from “third persons” then sure I agree

My claim is that hearsay isn't good reliable evidence. It's not admissible in court for a reason. So there go your hopes for "beyond a reasonable doubt."

You are not followign the conversation, the claim was that atleast for the “natural” events, my criteria is good enough.

And I see that as pointless to a discussion about magical/supernatural event claims.

My criteria being “any event reported in 2 sources (say Paul and Mark) should be accepted as a probable historical fact)………… this is true for “natural event”…….. I am just objecting on why applying different “rules” for non-natural events?

Again, it's the exact same rules for both. The problem is that "supernatural" events are unverifiable extraordinary claims, especially ones from ancient times that we can't actually investigate. And you can't even define the word in the first place! So we don't even know what we're talking about.

What's your point here? To show that because someone may have accurately made some mundane claims, that somehow that makes ther supernatural claims more likely, or .... ?

 

[SkepticThinker]

An interesting question would be, why are you avoiding that challenge?.......... why are you avoiding the challenge of proposing a naturalistic hypothesis (accept your part of the burden proof) and support that hypothesis?

We've all explained why to you several times now.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In this particular case hypotheiss 1 “wins”

But you made a more ambisious claim……….. “that naturalistic expalnations *always* win.

Those are not my words.
My actual words are: hypothesis that do NOT require suspension of natural law are, right out the gates, ALWAYS more likely then hypothesis that do.

Those are words that are so obviously true that I am baffled that even you insist on arguing against them.

Consider this counter example.

1 You go to your house, and the drawers start to open and close

2 then you see a nebulous image of a friend of your that passed away few days ago

3 he talks to you and he explains to you that he is a ghost.

4 you have a conversation with him about a football game that you had with him in 3rth grade

5 other witnesses where with you and saw the same thing. and it was rcorded in a camera.

What hypothesis would be better.

1 i´ts a ghost (something that is typically labeled as supernarual)

2 it´s a hallucination (natrual).....................(reed point 5 before claiming that this is the best hypotheiss)

I love how you have to change things up to include strong and verifiable evidence. Talk about moving the goalpost...
Is that supposed to be analogous to the bible claim?
Where's the verifiable evidence there? Where's the camera recording of jesus?

Assuming that you picked hypothesis 1, this proves that it is at least logically possible for natural hypothesis to lose vs something that would be labeled as supernatural.

Off course, you required to go give a fantastical imaginary fictional example to be able to make that point and include independently verifiable evidence, while that was not at all part of the initial setup (or the OP).



You are so hilarious.

This shows that naturalistic hypothesis don’t win by default…………

At least not in imaginary situations

Can you also give a real-world example?
You can't, can you?

How about that...